Conservative Republicans- PHONIES!!! - Page 2

It just occurred to me that Democrats are so used to attacking Republicans and Republicans are so used to attacking Democrats that when someone like myself enters the debate who is not affiliated with either major party and sees the blaring faults in both, they don't quite know how to react.

I'm proud of you for standing up and defending what you believe in, Northgate. I didn't know you felt that threatened by my presence here, but I assure you I try to maintain a civil dialogue, even when I am so easily dismissed or criticized for my assertion that I am not a Republican or Democrat.

It just occurred to me that Democrats are so used to attacking Republicans and Republicans are so used to attacking Democrats that when someone like myself enters the debate who is not affiliated with either major party and sees the blaring faults in both, they don't quite know how to react.

I'm proud of you for standing up and defending what you believe in, Northgate. I didn't know you felt that threatened by my presence here, but I assure you I try to maintain a civil dialogue, even when I am so easily dismissed or criticized for my assertion that I am not a Republican or Democrat.

I wouldn't worry about it. From the way you sound you haven't totally left the republican side of things.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I'm thinking he sounds a lot like jubelum who's also a member on trumptman's blog page.

But no matter we've heard guys like him before.

Man, you beat me to it. I was just going to say I thought he/she was Jubelum. I used to call him out on the carpet all the time about his baloney "centrism" (which I remember used to piss him off royally).

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

It just occurred to me that Democrats are so used to attacking Republicans and Republicans are so used to attacking Democrats that when someone like myself enters the debate who is not affiliated with either major party and sees the blaring faults in both, they don't quite know how to react.

I'm proud of you for standing up and defending what you believe in, Northgate. I didn't know you felt that threatened by my presence here, but I assure you I try to maintain a civil dialogue, even when I am so easily dismissed or criticized for my assertion that I am not a Republican or Democrat.

Threatened? Not at all.

You may not technically be a Republican or a Democrat. There have been many people who come and go around here who claimed not to be either. One thing ALWAYS remained consistent though. They were definitely ALL conservatives who bashed liberals very consistently and stood up for the Wingers as much as possible.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that 90% of your policy positions from here on out will be in the "conservative" category.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

You may not technically be a Republican or a Democrat. There have been many people who come and go around here who claimed not to be either. One thing ALWAYS remained consistent though. They were definitely ALL conservatives who bashed liberals very consistently and stood up for the Wingers as much as possible.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that 90% of your policy positions from here on out will be in the "conservative" category.

Oh I never said I wasn't conservative. I'm just not a Republican or Democrat. But why do you assume that all Republicans are conservative and all Democrats are liberal?

In terms of political party affiliation, I am a Constitutionalist--a member of the Constitution Party.

It just occurred to me that Democrats are so used to attacking Republicans and Republicans are so used to attacking Democrats that when someone like myself enters the debate who is not affiliated with either major party and sees the blaring faults in both, they don't quite know how to react.

I'm proud of you for standing up and defending what you believe in, Northgate. I didn't know you felt that threatened by my presence here, but I assure you I try to maintain a civil dialogue, even when I am so easily dismissed or criticized for my assertion that I am not a Republican or Democrat.

Please ignore their bullcrap. You don't have to be or prove anything to have the right solution or an opinion about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

I wouldn't worry about it. From the way you sound you haven't totally left the republican side of things.

Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

I'm thinking he sounds a lot like jubelum who's also a member on trumptman's blog page.

But no matter we've heard guys like him before.

Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northgate

Man, you beat me to it. I was just going to say I thought he/she was Jubelum. I used to call him out on the carpet all the time about his baloney "centrism" (which I remember used to piss him off royally).

Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northgate

Threatened? Not at all.

You may not technically be a Republican or a Democrat. There have been many people who come and go around here who claimed not to be either. One thing ALWAYS remained consistent though. They were definitely ALL conservatives who bashed liberals very consistently and stood up for the Wingers as much as possible.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that 90% of your policy positions from here on out will be in the "conservative" category.

Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Actually I'm still registered independent. But I've told that to you before in your old guise.

Who cares, go argue with the five year old former member voices in your head via PM's. You can ask all the new members you don't want to go around with this again while complaining there is no one here via PM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
Are you aware that reports prior to 911 sugested the OSBL was training people to use airplanes as weapons? These reports had been given to Bush.

Were you aware that Bush had the Bin lauden family flown out of Washington after 911?

Were you aware that as the previous head of an oil company Bush had dealings with the Bin Laudens?

Were you aware that Bush's reaction to the report that the twin towers had been hit was to continue to keep reading a book to children?

Sorry. You really don't sound unbiased.

And by the way what did we do to counter the attack?

Did we catch OSBL? No. We attacked another country that had nothing to do with the situation and we sure caught the the head of that country and he was tried and executed.

But as a newcomer you probably don't understand that we here at PO have already argued these points to death. The Bush supporters didn't come out on top.

Geez!

Translation: "Sorry. You really don't sound unbiased because you don't agree with me."

Everyone is biased. Think about it.

I am well aware of the things the Bush administration did. Do not assume I supported all of them. Did I say I supported the illegal war? Did I say I voted for Bush? McCain? Did I say I was a member of the Republican Party?

You assume too much.

I'm simply pointing out some things you may not know about. Facts are stubborn things. Please don't lump me in with your stereotypes just because I'm bringing up some facts that may challenge your conclusions.

What did we do to counter the attack? Umm...we're in Afghanistan, right? We've hunted down and detained or killed many of the top Al Qaeda leaders, have we not?

Or how about the things that Obama inherited from Bush discussion :

Quote:

Clinton handed him a mild recession ( which it was time for since we were coming off the longest running Bull market in history ) that would have ended better if Bush had handled it correctly and a surplus in the budget ( which was gone with Bush in 6 months ). Now at the end of the Bush terms Obama was handed a wrecked budget, a really bad recession, a war we shouldn't have fought, and more problems than I can relate here.

To which you said nothing.

You're very vocal about your oppostion to Obama's approach.

But what solutions would you offer the american people for this economic crisis?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Are you aware that reports prior to 911 sugested the OSBL was training people to use airplanes as weapons? These reports had been given to Bush.

If this is true, what should Bush have done? Declare an unconstitutional war based on a few reports? Oh wait...Bush did that...except after 9/11. But I thought you were against that.

What would you have done?

Quote:

Were you aware that Bush had the Bin lauden family flown out of Washington after 911?

I think I remember hearing something about that. Not sure what relevance that has to anything, since we usually don't punish entire families for the crimes one member of the family commits.

What would you have done?

Quote:

Were you aware that as the previous head of an oil company Bush had dealings with the Bin Laudens?

If that is true, what kind of dealings? To what extent? To what end? That statement incriminates no one. Obama associated with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Started his campaign in the guy's home. Now if Bush single-handedly orchestrated the entire 9/11 and subsequent "War on Terror" thing, then we have a problem. But conspiracy kooks have already been refuted by some pretty clear facts/evidence.

Were you aware that Bush's reaction to the report that the twin towers had been hit was to continue to keep reading a book to children?

This one's an oldie but a goodie. Completely goofy, too. As if the President's immediate reaction to any crisis situation is clear evidence of some kind of guilt or culpability?

I'm not going to make excuses for his reaction because I wasn't in his shoes.

Quote:

Sorry. You really don't sound unbiased.

Neither do you.

Quote:

And by the way what did we do to counter the attack?

Did we catch OSBL? No. We attacked another country that had nothing to do with the situation and we sure caught the the head of that country and he was tried and executed.

The President, with the support of both Republicans and Democrats declared unconstitutional war and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. To their credit, they did take out a lot of the top leaders of Al Qaeda and have severely crippled the organization. Do the ends justify the means? That debate could fill pages by itself.

Quote:

But as a newcomer you probably don't understand that we here at PO have already argued these points to death. The Bush supporters didn't come out on top.

Apparently they're still alive and kicking, because here we are. Who was keeping score?

If this is true, what should Bush have done? Declare an unconstitutional war based on a few reports? Oh wait...Bush did that...except after 9/11. But I thought you were against that.

What would you have done?

I think I remember hearing something about that. Not sure what relevance that has to anything, since we usually don't punish entire families for the crimes one member of the family commits.

What would you have done?

If that is true, what kind of dealings? To what extent? To what end? That statement incriminates no one. Obama associated with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Started his campaign in the guy's home. Now if Bush single-handedly orchestrated the entire 9/11 and subsequent "War on Terror" thing, then we have a problem. But conspiracy kooks have already been refuted by some pretty clear facts/evidence.

This one's an oldie but a goodie. Completely goofy, too. As if the President's immediate reaction to any crisis situation is clear evidence of some kind of guilt or culpability?

I'm not going to make excuses for his reaction because I wasn't in his shoes.

Neither do you.

The President, with the support of both Republicans and Democrats declared unconstitutional war and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. To their credit, they did take out a lot of the top leaders of Al Qaeda and have severely crippled the organization. Do the ends justify the means? That debate could fill pages by itself.

Apparently they're still alive and kicking, because here we are. Who was keeping score?

Gosh!

Quote:

What would you have done?

Been more prepared for that situation. I mean really they flew an airplane into the military HQ for the western world. You'd have thought they would be targeting it miles away in spite of the passengers because how many died at the pentigon?

And who's John Ray?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Clinton handed him a mild recession ( which it was time for since we were coming off the longest running Bull market in history ) that would have ended better if Bush had handled it correctly and a surplus in the budget ( which was gone with Bush in 6 months ). Now at the end of the Bush terms Obama was handed a wrecked budget, a really bad recession, a war we shouldn't have fought, and more problems than I can relate here.

Clinton was the beneficiary of the fabulous economy generated by policies dating back to the Reagan era. In spite of Clinton, the economy did well. But the seeds of the present ecomomic turmoil were planted during his administration by BOTH PARTIES.

Under the Bush Administration, the government spent money like a drunken sailor and expanded substantially, especially after 9/11. Obama was handed a wrecked budget, and has decided to fix it by wrecking it more. And fulfilled his promise to bring our troops home by SENDING MORE TROOPS to fight in the unconstitutional war.

This mess was not created by any one president, nor will it be cleaned up by any one president.

Clinton was the beneficiary of the fabulous economy generated by policies dating back to the Reagan era. In spite of Clinton, the economy did well. But the seeds of the present ecomomic turmoil were planted during his administration by BOTH PARTIES.

Under the Bush Administration, the government spent money like a drunken sailor and expanded substantially, especially after 9/11. Obama was handed a wrecked budget, and has decided to fix it by wrecking it more. And fulfilled his promise to bring our troops home by SENDING MORE TROOPS to fight in the unconstitutional war.

This mess was not created by any one president, nor will it be cleaned up by any one president.

Quote:

Clinton was the beneficiary of the fabulous economy generated by policies dating back to the Reagan era.

Well that's the way you view it. My view is that we were recovering from a recession that started curiously enough during another Bush's term in office. The american people had had it with republican rule. Much like now. They voted with their pocket books in mind much like now. That's why the term " It's the economy stupid! " was coined. If it hadn't been for that Bush being the incumbant should have won a second term.

As far as Obama wrecking the budget more what do you base that on? Paul Krugman says he's not spending enough.

So what solutions would you offer?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

President Clinton’s Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.

Of course this was probably written before the latest downturn but you get the idea.

And

Quote:

Clinton-Gore Economic Policy Has Dramatically Improved the Economy

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton’s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history."
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan’s re-nomination announcement

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998

"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

Yeah, yeah I know it was really the republicans right?

That kind of thinking reminds me of When Chekov on Star Trek used to always claim that everything came from Russia.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0% of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4% of the vote) and billionaire populist Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9% of the vote) on a platform focusing on domestic issues; a significant part of Clinton's success was Bush's steep decline in public approval. Because Bush's approval ratings were in the 80% range during the Gulf War, he was described as "unbeatable." However, when Bush compromised with Democrats in an attempt to lower Federal deficits, he reneged on his promise not to raise taxes, hurting his approval rating. Clinton repeatedly condemned Bush for making a promise he failed to keep.[21] By election time, the economy was souring and Bush saw his approval rating plummet to slightly over 40%.[22][21] Finally, conservatives were previously united by anti-communism, but with the end of the Cold War, the party lacked a uniting issue. When Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson addressed Christian themes at the Republican National Convention, with Bush criticizing Democrats for omitting God from their platform, many moderates were alienated.[23] Clinton then pointed to his moderate, "New Democrat" record as governor of Arkansas, though some on the more liberal side of the party remained suspicious.[24] Many Democrats who supported Ronald Reagan and Bush in previous elections switched their allegiance to Clinton.[25]

His election ended twelve years of Republican rule of the White House, and twenty of the previous twenty-four years. The election gave Democrats full control of the United States Congress.[1] It was the first time this had occurred since the Jimmy Carter presidency in the late 1970s.

However, during the campaign questions of conflict of interest regarding state business and the politically powerful Rose Law Firm, at which Hillary Rodham Clinton was a partner, arose. Clinton maintained questions were moot because all transactions with the state were deducted prior to determining Hillary's firm pay.[26][13] Further concern arose when Bill Clinton announced that, with Hillary, voters would be getting two presidents "for the price of one".[27]

William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III, August 19, 1946)[1] served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. He was the third-youngest president; only Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were younger when entering office. He became president at the end of the Cold War, and as he was born in the period after World War II, is known as the first Baby Boomer president.[2] His wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is currently the United States Secretary of State. She was previously a United States Senator from New York, and also candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Clinton was described as a New Democrat and was largely known for the Third Way philosophy of governance that came to epitomize his two terms as president.[3] His policies, on issues such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform, have been described as "centrist."[4][5] Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus.[6][7] Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion. On the heels of a failed attempt at health care reform with a Democratic Congress, Republicans won control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years.[8] Two years later, he was re-elected and became the first member of the Democratic Party since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term as president.[9] Later he was impeached for obstruction of justice, but was subsequently acquitted by the U.S. Senate.[10][11]

Clinton left office with an approval rating at 66%, the highest end of office rating of any president since World War II.[12] Since then, he has been involved in public speaking and humanitarian work. Clinton created the William J. Clinton Foundation to promote and address international causes such as treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS and global warming.

It's the economy, stupid" was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H.W. Bush. For a time, Bush was considered unbeatable because of foreign policy developments such as the end of the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War. The phrase, coined by Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, refers to the notion that Clinton was a better choice because Bush had not adequately addressed the economy, which had recently undergone a recession.

In order to keep the campaign on message, Carville hung a sign in Bill Clinton's Little Rock campaign headquarters that said:

Change vs. more of the same
The economy, stupid
Don't forget health care.[1]
Although the sign was intended for an internal audience of campaign workers, the phrase became something of a slogan for the Clinton election campaign. Clinton's campaign used the recession to successfully unseat George H.W. Bush. In March 1991, days after the ground invasion of Iraq, 90% of polled Americans approved of President Bush's job performance.[2] Later the next year, Americans' opinions had turned sharply; 64% of polled Americans disapproved of Bush's job performance in August 1992.[2]

The eventual slogan was a revision of Carville's original catchphrase, "It's the economy, retard." Clinton insisted the word "retard" be changed to "stupid" for fear of offending handicapped voters.

The phrase is repeated often in American political culture, usually starting with the word "it's" and with commentators sometimes using a different word in place of "economy." Examples include "It's the deficit, stupid!"[3] "It's the corporation, stupid!"[4] "It's the math, stupid!"[5] and "It's the voters, stupid!"[6]

That could have been used with this most recent election as it's still timely and there's even another Bush!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Come on! You and I both know there are hundreds of popular sources that everyone uses that you wouldn't like. And yes Northgate is right. Which of those items on Wikipedia are untrue then?

When it comes down to it none of the arguments these guys have washes. It's that kind of thinking that lost them the election. Believeing something that isn't true. And if the facts don't support that belief then change them.

Oops! I said again didn't I!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

It's obviously a matter of perspective, isn't it? While you are busy trying to prove how Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong, I'm approaching it from the perspective that they are BOTH wrong.

You are convinced that the Democrats are "right" (correct), so everything you see and read is interpreted from that perspective. Likewise, those who are convinced the Republicans are "right" (correct) interpret things through that prism.

I believe the Clinton took credit for a good economy, the fundamentals of which were created by the Reagan tax cuts and policies enacted before Clinton ever took office, and that policies enacted during the Clinton era actually laid the foundations for our present crisis. Bush only exacerbated things.

Anyone can post anything in a Wikipedia article with plenty of "evidence" to back up any view. I mean, look at the differing views on the Great Depression and the volumes that have been written on it.

So you are saying the Bush admin was unable to see that the country was damaged by Clinton policies for 8 long years. Non of their experts had the knowledge to find the flawed Clintonian rules that caused this country to become Chinese food, on hawk to communists. While after Clinton the country was sporting a fiscal surplus.

So you are saying the Bush admin was unable to see that the country was damaged by Clinton policies for 8 long years. Non of their experts had the knowledge to find the flawed Clintonian rules that caused this country to become Chinese food, on hawk to communists. While after Clinton the country was sporting a fiscal surplus.

Oh I forgot Bush spent 3.5 of the 8 years on vacation. Sorry my bad.

No, I'm saying the Bush Administration had a big government, globalist agenda and their economic policies furthered that agenda.

I truly enjoy that he's come out in defense of the progressive tide in our politics. A lot of the younger people have grown up in a political environment so polarized that we naturally assume that one side is just as bad as the other. An environment where we're quick to criticize, but not to defend.

But that will only ever get you halfway there. Stewart helps me remember that although both sides have dirt on them, one of them is nonetheless demonstrably better than the other. That professional jaded detachment doesn't accomplish anything. That we won't get anywhere unless we choose where we stand and wade into the fray.

Jon Stewart is real. He is the truth. And he may have changed journalism and reporting the truth to a whole new level.

Quite telling I must say. He should have been appointed Head of Clusterfuck Abatement for this financial crisis. Because the blame shouldn't go to Obama, or anyone else...just ourselves. Or Bush or Clinton or Reagan even...they have all been phonies, everyone we praise, vilify and rant on. Phonies. Not a true original yet in the bunch.

No, not even Reagan... I have to laugh here...We all have to...

Guess what? Maybe, just maybe we've all been gamed, ponzied and lobotomized by all fronts. Left, Right and Libertarianly fucked up the ass my fellow PoliticalOutsider nonesuches.

Go back to arguing about Apple and how well served and priced they are, how more superior they are. Because Apple's just hardware and the reason you and I have one is because we are all just BOOMERS.

See you in I guess...1,382 days. Or until Hell freezes over. I will lurk, someday this forum will be worth posting again (looks over shoulder).

So! Hassan? Many blessings. Jimmac, FormerLurker, Northgate, etc.? Keep up the good fight.

Trumptman and all your aliases?

Ok. I guess I crafted another solid, true and irrefutable argument that you or your aliases won't read or care about ("agree to disagree", etc...). Therefore...